I've never really put much stock into third trimester size estimates from ultrasounds, because it seems like they have a reputation for being off.
I had a ultrasound at 30 weeks yesterday, and my OB and I discussed the baby's size, and compared DS1's size during my third trimester with him.
I had always assumed DS1 was estimated average during third tri, and then born much smaller than that, but according to my records, through out my third trimester with him, he actually measured small, and kept moving down on the percentile chart. So, he was smaller than predicted at birth, but the general estimation that I was carrying a small baby was right on the money. I had pre-e with him, and my OB said that could have played a part in his size.
Well my current pregnancy is going great, stellar BP, and the baby is measuring quite a bit more than DS. He is in the 60th percentile, so a nice average size, and more in line with what DH and I were at birth.
For the first time, I'm feeling like this is a very different pregnancy and baby than my first, but I'm also wondering how much stalk I should put into the size estimates. I don't expect them to be right on the money, but do you think it's safe to assume I'm having an average size baby?
If you're a STM, how far off were your size estimates?
Do you think it's more common for the estimates to be high or low?
Re: Size estimates
I will refuse any sizing u/s since they can be (I believe) + or - 2 pounds. I wouldnt put any stock into it really.
I had a friend who had a baby about 6 months ago and her OB was pushing for a scheduled c-section because baby was measuring over 12 pounds on the u/s.... baby was born 2 days past his due date and weighed 9 lbs. I think its ridiculous that an OB would push for a major surgery based on medical equipment that is not accurate when it comes to weight. It scared my friend. I am just so happy she felt strongly enough about wanting a natural birth to decline the c-section and go into labor on her own.
With twins, I get a growth ultrasound every 4 weeks. The measurements are just estimates, but since they are done by the same DR on the same machine, I feel like we get to see a good pattern of growth which is really what I am looking at.
Are they both really 4lbs right now? Maybe, maybe not. That seems high to me. But, they have been very consistently at the tope of the range for their gestational age this entire pregnancy so I know they are growing properly and proportionately.
See I think using an u/s to track growth is different than doing one u/s at 36 weeks and saying your baby weighs 10 pounds time for a c-section. I think teh same goes for measuring fundal height..... they are necessarily looking for big baby vs little baby when they do that, they are looking for consistent growth. If the growth changes drastically in either direction it is a warning sign that something is going on. I think there are legit reasons for using the technology, but to say oh this baby is for sure 10 pounds based on an u/s we just did is a crock.
My midwife did the same thing with DS and she was very close. With taht siad, most babies are in the 7 lb range so its not really something I would bank on
I had regular growth scans/BPPs d/t GD
Latest estimate at 39 wks was 9lbs2oz
birthweight: 8lb6oz
My doctor doesn't do size estimates. I specifically asked for one today because I finally got to see my delivering dr from last time. He was the only one that ever even mentioned that I'd have a big baby last time. And that was 2 hrs before he was born.
The only size measurements my dr does is the uterus. Which is always on point. With this pregnancy and last. But last time I had a 10lb 9oz baby. So i asked the dr today and included in my internal exam - he gave me his best guess that this baby is over 10lbs also.
I actually trust his experience more than I'd trust a U/S.